Web Only /
Features » June 21, 2019

Any Dem Who Wants to Be President Should Reject War with Iran, Not Hide Behind Process Criticisms

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

The moral stakes of Washington’s escalating actions against Iran couldn’t be higher.

On the evening of June 20, Donald Trump reportedly gave initial authorization to launch strikes on Iran, then revoked the order at the eleventh hour. The move—which was the latest action in a long-simmering campaign to wage war against Iran—was falsely framed by the Trump administration as retaliatory: Earlier on the same day, reports surfaced that a U.S. Navy surveillance drone violated Iran’s airspace border, prompting the Revolutionary Guard to shoot it down, which Trump called “a big mistake.”

The previous week, shepherded by neocon National Security Advisor John Bolton, the administration alleged, with no conclusive evidence, that Iran was responsible for attacks on two commercial oil tankers near the Gulf of Oman on June 13. This occurred just over a year after the Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, putting the U.S. on a path to greater aggression towards Iran.

Iran has denied the Trump administration’s oil-tanker claims, which remain unsubstantiated. On June 14, the U.S. military released indistinct video footage, which the U.S. military insisted showed an Iranian military patrol boat approaching one of the tankers. The Pentagon followed this with additional “clearer” photos meant to “prove” Iran’s involvement in the attack, and claimed that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) removed an unexploded limpet mine from one of the ships, yet failed to prove that these mines were even attached to the ship. Further, the head of the Japanese company Kokuka Sangyo Co., which owns one of the ships, contradicted the U.S. military’s allegations.

The crisis, fueled by the Trump administration’s bellicose rhetoric and dangerous provocations, has offered a glimpse into the foreign-policy platforms of some of the leading 2020 Democratic hopefuls. The responses of these candidates—Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders—ranged from expressing skepticism about the U.S. narrative on Iran’s actions and condemning “forever wars” to handwringing about whether Trump is following the right process for starting a war and reinforcing the White House narrative that Iran as a “threat.” While Sanders appears to adopt the strongest and most morally informed oppositional stance, Warren trails just behind him, owed to her slightly weaker legislative record on Iran. Meanwhile, candidates like Harris and Biden, who continue to espouse rhetoric about the supposed national security threat posed by Iran and focus more on procedural critiques, rank among the weakest.

Kamala Harris

California Senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris has vowed to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal if elected, commenting that Trump’s decision to withdraw “was not only not smart, because so far it was working, but it was also unilateral action, not bringing along and apparently not consulting our allies around the globe who are also invested in the right outcome.”

The Iran nuclear deal was an agreement between the U.S., UK, France, China, Russia and Germany in which Iran would restrict supposed nuclear-weapons development in exchange for lifted economic sanctions. While the deal is a step towards deescalation, it meets a low bar, as it is premised on a power imbalance: U.S. intelligence agencies acknowledged in 2007 and 2012 that Iran does not have a nuclear-weapons program. What’s more, per the agreement, the U.S. is allowed to retain nuclear weapons, despite its horrific nuclear history. Nonetheless, U.S. withdrawal is disastrous, as it puts the U.S. on a path to greater confrontation with Iran, and because of this, the deal should be defended.

Harris, however, has remained largely mum on the oil-tanker canard. In May, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested that the U.S. could leverage the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as legal justification to attack Iran, Harris stated that she was unaware of the comments. To her credit, Harris became a cosponsor of the “Prevention of Unconstitutional War with Iran Act of 2019,” which prohibits funds from being used for a war with Iran without congressional approval. But she was more than three weeks behind Warren, who signed up as a cosponsor on May 14, and even further behind Sanders, who cosponsored the day the bill was introduced: April 4. Troublingly, Harris voted in favor of and co-sponsored a 2017 bill that imposed new sanctions on Iran by bundling them with sanctions against Russia and North Korea. Warren voted in favor of this bill but did not cosponsor, and Sanders was the only congressperson in the House or Senate who caucuses with the Democrats to vote against.

Harris has questioned Washington’s Iran narrative, but frames it not in terms of morality—say, sparing the lives of Iranian people—but in terms of national security. On June 18, she tweeted:

“This president likes to talk tough, but for six months now, we've gone without a permanent Secretary of Defense and he just withdrew his nominee — all as Trump marches us toward conflict with Iran. The president is making us less safe.”

She continued on June 20:

“Either the Trump Administration is angling for another disastrous war in the Middle East, or they've spent two years saber-rattling against Iran with no strategy and no endgame. This president is making America weaker and less safe.”

Harris’ comments boil down to a substanceless process critique. The lack of a Secretary of Defense isn’t the problem: The problem is a political establishment clamoring for war with Iran. Harris, then, ignores the moral stakes of the issue, while accepting the Trump administration’s charge that Iran is a threat to “national security.”

Pete Buttigieg

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, whose campaign is informed by a “policy details later” approach, has endorsed the unsubstantiated claim that Iran orchestrated the attacks. In a June 16 interview on “Meet the Press,” he called the evidence that Iran orchestrated the attacks “compelling” and stated:

“It’s a little distressing to think that because this administration's credibility is so low in general, I think a lot of people are thinking twice at a moment when America’s word should be decisive.

When the U.S. says this is something that has happened and this is the consensus of our administration, that should be something that goes without question. But of course, that’s just not the case in an administration that has been extremely unreliable in so many ways.”

The same day, Buttigieg expressed disagreement with Bolton’s efforts to ratchet up aggression when he told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “we need a measured assessment of information as it continues to come in.” Buttigieg added:

“There's no question that Iran has a pattern of malign activities. There's also no question that there is a pattern that is disturbingly reminiscent of the run-up to the war in Iraq, in some cases being driven by the same people.

I mean, the fact that one of the architects of the Iraq War is the President's National Security Adviser right now, when the president himself has pretended that he was against the Iraq War all along, this is shocking. And it should be extremely disturbing to all of us.”

Buttigieg is right to condemn those who orchestrated the Iraq War and to warn of the parallels between Iraq and Iran as targets of U.S. military action. However, he is mistaken to ignore the power assymetry between the U.S. and Iran.

Joe Biden

Joe Biden’s history as Vice President from 2009 to 2017—which included overseeing the Iran nuclear deal—colors his response to the White House. Like Harris, Biden has remained mostly silent in response to the Pentagon’s recent account, but as of 2017, rejected Trump’s intent to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. Like Harris, his rationale gave primacy to the “security” of the U.S. and Israel. “[The Iran nuclear deal] is working,” he wrote on Facebook. “It is making the United States and our allies, including Israel, more secure.” He added, “The Iran deal does one thing: remove the immediate threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would present to the region, Israel, and the United States.”

“Trump also promised that walking away would somehow lead to a better deal—instead, the predictable has happened: Iran is building back up its nuclear capability. It’s sadly ironic that the State Department is now calling on Iran to abide by the very deal the Trump administration abandoned.”

“By walking away from diplomacy, Trump has made military conflict more likely. Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need.”

“Make no mistake: Iran continues to be a bad actor that abuses human rights and supports terrorist activities throughout the region.

What we need is presidential leadership that will take strategic action to counter the Iranian threat, restore America's standing in the world, recognize the value of principled diplomacy, and strengthen our nation and our security by working strategically with our allies.”

While Trump’s stratagems should be rebuked, Biden misplaces his focus on the supposed danger of Iran, rather than the violent posturing of the Trump administration.

Elizabeth Warren

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has supported the nuclear agreement since its inception, has levied criticism toward the White House. On June 18, in response to a New York Times report titled, “Trump Adds Troops After Iran Says It Will Breach Nuclear Deal” (a questionable media framing given that the U.S. had already violated the deal), she tweeted:

“I hope Iran chooses a different path. But let’s be clear: Trump provoked this crisis. He has no strategy to contain it, he’s burned through our friends and allies, and now he’s doubling down on military force. We can’t afford another forever war.”

While Warren was correct to argue against war, she opens by appearing to place blame against Iran, neglecting to acknowledge the U.S.’s role in villainizing Iran in the first place.

On June 20, after reports of the Navy drone were published, Warren elaborated on her comments, adopting a stronger oppositional stance to the prospect of war with Iran.

“Trump provoked this crisis, and his reckless foreign policy by tweet will only worsen it. I've co-sponsored legislation to prohibit a war with Iran. We need to de-escalate tensions—not let the war hawks in this administration drag us into conflict. #NoWarWithIran”

That same day, she followed with

“Donald Trump promised to bring our troops home. Instead he has pulled out of a deal that was working and instigated another unnecessary conflict. There is no justification for further escalating this crisis—we need to step back from the brink of war.”

Here, Warren uses stronger language to denounce Trump’s actions, but still falls short of a moral denunciation of U.S. violence or a more incisive analysis of the Iran nuclear deal’s power relations. Meanwhile, Warren’s vote for new sanctions against Iran in 2017 weakens her legislative record.

Bernie Sanders

Like Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders (and Independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic domination) has taken a decidedly oppositional stance, explicitly questioning the official Washington narrative. In a June 18 interview on MSNBC, he commented:

“If you look at the recent history of this country, I think we understand that the two worst foreign policy disasters [the Vietnam War and the Iraq War] were based on lies that came from the White House.”

He added:

“Let me just say this: I will do everything I personally can as a United States Senator to stop the United States attacking Iran. If we go into a war with Iran, this will be an asymmetrical war which will go on and on and on. There will be never-ending wars in the Middle East…So we have got to do everything we can to bring the antagonists, Saudi Arabia, which is a brutal dictatorship, together with Iran…Use the power of the United States to work out a diplomatic solution, not a military solution.”

Sanders repeated these points on Twitter on June 18, noting Trump has “no legal authority to launch an attack on Iran,” and on June 20:

“If you think the invasion of Iraq was a disaster, a war with Iran would be worse. The United States must bring Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table, not foment a never-ending, unconstitutional war in the region.”

“I think if there was a war with Iran, it would be an absolute disaster for our country, for Iran, for the region, and for the world.”

Sanders, who voted against new sanctions against Iran in 2017, acknowledges U.S. provocation and rejects the notion that Iran is a true threat. Because of this, Sanders’ censure of the White House’s latest war attempt offers the most robust rejection of war with Iran.

Sanders’ was the only campaign that immediately responded to In These Times’ request for comment, sending the following statement (which had previously been publicly released).

“Attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman are unacceptable and must be fully investigated. But this incident must not be used as a pretext for a war with Iran, a war which would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States, Iran, the region and the world. The time is now for the United States to exert international leadership and bring the countries in the region together to forge a diplomatic solution to the growing tensions. I would also remind President Trump that there is no congressional authorization for a war with Iran. A unilateral U.S. attack on Iran would be illegal and unconstitutional.”

Candidates, of course, are right to criticize the power of Trump to wage war without Congress, thanks in part to the expansion of presidential war-making powers under George W. Bush and Obama. But on the eve of possible war, it won’t suffice to point out this procedural breakdown. Candidates need to make it clear they're against a possible war itself, rather than simply the means by which Trump is executing it.

The moral stakes of Washington’s escalating actions against Iran couldn’t be higher. The war the White House seeks is, as Sanders notes, based on lies, and it would unequivocally do untold harm to Iranian people. The evidence doesn’t show that Iran is a “threat,” but rather that the U.S. has manufactured a pretext for yet another brutal war.

What do you want to see from our coverage of the 2020 presidential candidates?

As our editorial team maps our plan for how to cover the 2020 Democratic primary, we want to hear from you:

It only takes a minute to answer this short, three-question survey, but your input will help shape our coverage for months to come. That’s why we want to make sure you have a chance to share your thoughts.

You are wrong on all points. Except the last sentence, on which you are exactly correct.

Posted by BobFromDistrict9 on 2019-06-29 20:05:58

Very interesting!

Posted by BobFromDistrict9 on 2019-06-29 20:05:03

The blue-print for Israeli aggression is the Zionist Plan for the Middle East, outlined by Oded Yinon, an Israeli strategist, in Kivunim magazine in 1982, It describes a strategy to destroy all Israel's neighbours, and break them up into powerless statelets, along sectarian, tribal and ethnic lines. It asserts that the first target should be Iraq, then Syria etc, The policy has been reiterated often since, as in Netanyahu's 'A Clean Break' of 1988.

Posted by mulga mumblebrain on 2019-06-25 04:20:30

Kansas under Brownback is just the latest example of the failure of neoliberalism. It has failed EVERY time to do anything but increase inequality, elite wealth, debt, poverty, ecological devastation and military aggression by the USA and its stooges.

Posted by mulga mumblebrain on 2019-06-25 04:15:09

How AMAZING to see anyone state the obvious-why should the DPRK or Iran de-nuclearise when the USA does not have to? In my opinion nukes are much safer, and less likely to be used, in the hands of the rest of humanity, than in those of the lunatics in Washington. In any case, Israel and the Sauds want Iran 'obliterated' and which US politician will defy that pair of pariahs?

Posted by mulga mumblebrain on 2019-06-25 04:11:58

Yes. The "intensity" of Republican support is often distinct. The problem is that individuals with the least amount of knowledge are often the most adamant in their beliefs - even when wrong. They even double-down on disproven trickle-down nonsense.

This is why I find neoliberal/Democrats so corrupt; Kansas under Brownback proved ABSOLUTELY that trickle-down economics is NOT a rising tide that lifts all boats. In truth, the wealthy "own" the rising tide and it never seems to trickle-down to us. But here are the Clintons and Biden and Schumer and Pelosi - still pushing the nonsense voodoo economics to benefit corporations. They force every American via MANDATE to pay into private insurance companies who double the cost, take profit and then trickle-down the least amount of healthcare allowed by law.

The insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank while we pay TWICE as much as the rest of the world to get healthcare ranked at the bottom (23rd). Corporate profits do not make healthcare better for anyone; it's a legalized scam.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-06-24 07:39:44

Review your numbers - the "75%" seems to be from the USA during the Eisenhower administration. The rich were actually taxed back then - unlike now when they RARELY have to pay anything, let alone their fair share. *Yes I remember reading that.I also remember reading who set about changing that scenario.I don't entirely blame the GOP, yes there are greedy DEMS also.But it was the GOP who changed the terms a person could stay in office.But from where I sit now, with a deficit like we have now, and over fifty years of giving so many companies the type of tax breaks they have and so many intertwined advantages, it would take years, decades to have some semblance of what is needed, I believe to ascertain the goals desired.Although money has always been a part of our politics and will always be, as long as POLS and people buy into the racial bigotries, the religious bigotries, cultural and all else to divide us and play this 'he's got a bigger slice of pie than me, it can be used against us as a nation.And believe this, other 'nations' have used this information against us because this is how we roll.And yes, although I didn't see that 'we are not them' platform, I hear ya.Another form of division we can't afford if we are to move from step one to step two.alas, sometimes I actually admire the determination of some Trump supporters to stick with it even if they know their guy is conning them.

Posted by marriea on 2019-06-23 09:18:42

We were there until the neoliberals joined the Republicans and the DLC hijacked the Democratic party away from us New Dealers. Review your numbers - the "75%" seems to be from the USA during the Eisenhower administration. The rich were actually taxed back then - unlike now when they RARELY have to pay anything, let alone their fair share. *

Neoliberals are nothing more than Republicans who can't get elected as Republicans. Some Dems are still voting on the mistaken "we are not them" third-way platform.* link not allowed.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-06-23 08:57:26

It's been shown that it was Saudi Arabia - the terrorists, the funding, the will. Neoliberals in the DP, the Republilican party and a willing media, just keep repeating the propaganda. Remember... it's not actual history that is repeated, it's the propaganda. You are right: We are living thru a re-writing of history.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-06-23 08:45:42

We were there until the neoliberals joined the Republicans and the DLC hijacked the Democratic party away from us New Dealers. Review your numbers - they are fake.

Neoliberals are nothing more than Republicans who can't get elected as Republicans. Some Dems are still voting on the mistaken "we are not them" third-way platform.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-06-23 08:41:22

Although I like Bernie and many of his proposals, I don't see them happening any time soon.We just as a nation isn't quite there yet.For those things he proposes, just like the candidate who proposes $1000 a month for every citizen or adult, sounds good but isn't doable, at least in our life time down.And there in lies the problem.I get where they are coming from.But such proposals have to be ratified by each state or else some state would be left out.Each of our states are like each of the Europeans countries, a part of a bigger country, but each state has it's own government, called state sovereignty rights.Just like people have, say, the right to abortion, because it is a national right, each state has the right to sadly, state it's own terms.We are not Sweden, or Denmark or for that matter France.And unless Americans are will to denote at least 75% per cent of their earnings to the causes we so want to happen, then we will never have such plans, at least not in our life time.Maybe our children and grandchildren will be more benevolent.

Posted by marriea on 2019-06-22 13:59:42

i guess that the US government thinks that Iran has not be noticing how the US got us involved with the Iraqi WAR.Mostly Saudi nationalist among with one person each from Egypt, one person from Lebanon, two from the UAE.Not one person was from Iraq. the clear majority were from Saudi Arabia. Yet we remain on very good terms with the Saudi's.Why is that?.Israel was pushing the US to get rid of Iraq. or at least Iraqi's leadership under Saddam Hussein.Now Israel is pushing for the US to get rid of the leadership of Iran.I get that Israel has a right to exist.But so do the other countries and their religion.I hate to see the day when America loses it's status in the world because of an ignorant president.It is clear that Trump is taking his marching orders from another entity.I keep hoping that our intelligence and FBI is just going along right now, to find out once and for all who is behind this.But from my layman's point of view, even if there were someone else whispering in someone's ear., that person voting voting had the option of rejecting any interference.If I tell you to go and kill someone, and you do it, then my hands are clean unless there is clear evidence of coercion.and threats.From my prospective, their is clear not clear coercion but a deep willingness to be lead.To me Trump is is betraying our country and it's rule for personal gain and adulation.

Posted by marriea on 2019-06-22 13:46:10

The PR machine of Saudi Arabia and Israel want war, followed by the Christian right which demands war. Our fat MIC wishes for a war then they will get so much more money, when that happens our economy will fall. US Christians want Iran destroyed but they care little about the Christians and Jews who live there. The economic issues cast more that a huge cloud. The EU will lose the money they put into Iran and due to the fact that Iran is a major part of the China Belt system when Iran is destroyed the China Belt system will be destroyed. Russia and China may defend Iran to protect the Belt System. Iran supplies electrical power to 7 countries who would be hard pressed to cover the loss of Iranian electrical power.

Posted by 6384601 on 2019-06-22 11:05:48

I just scrolled down to what Bernie has to say. That covers it. Even the author quotes Sanders to sum up.